2 innings ODIs?

[LA ICE-E]

ok so it's gonna be tried in county cricket with pro40. I kind of like the idea because that eliminates the "boring 20-40" thing.

But instead of it being 40 overs and being like 2 20/20's added together, I would like it to be like 25 overs per innings with 2 sets of 5 overs of powerplay per innings and the 1st 5 overs is mandatory powerplay of each innings and the other 5 is chosen by the captains.

I think this will eventually replace odi's, what you guys think?

[Jakester1288]

I like ODI's as they are, although. your idea is not a bad one.

[GotSpin]

I got confused - Not very bright you see

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by GoT_SpIn

I got confused - Not very bright you see

what's confusing? 50 overs being split in half so it be like this
Team A 25 overs
Team B 25 Overs
Team A 50 overs
Team B 50 Overs.

[Goughy]

Its probably how it should have been done in the begininng. Prevents massive blowout wins as the game is broken down into sections. Helps extend games for TV scheduling.

However, now its further faffing on a format that cant be left alone. Id love to see the number of changes introduced in OD cricket to try and jazz it up. There hasnt been a year without meddling.

[S.P. Fleming]

na, ODI cricket is fine as it is.

[Isura]

Bizarre. Is there going to be a follow on rule? How will they deal with Duckworth-Lewis ?

[Richard]

Not sure whether it is yet going to be done in this country - the overwhelmingly preferable option for most people is to simply get rid of the Pro40 nonsense entirely.

Two-innings limited-overs cricket is yet another thing that garners roughly zero interest for me.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by Isura

Bizarre. Is there going to be a follow on rule? How will they deal with Duckworth-Lewis ?

No because you only have ten wickets for both innings I think.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by Richard

Not sure whether it is yet going to be done in this country - the overwhelmingly preferable option for most people is to simply get rid of the Pro40 nonsense entirely.

Two-innings limited-overs cricket is yet another thing that garners roughly zero interest for me.

Yeah I read it is going to be done this year.You don't like 20/20, and you don't like this, but if odi was like this from the beginning I doubt you'd have 0 interest in it.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

Yeah I read it is going to be done this year.

No, you read it was proposed. Unless you've read something I haven't, you haven't read that it's confirmed.

You don't like 20/20, and you don't like this, but if odi was like this from the beginning I doubt you'd have 0 interest in it.

Maybe. But that isn't the way it's happened.

[Prince EWS]

I actually don't think this idea is horrible. You'd have to split it into two innings of 25 - not 20 - for it to be of any real use though as 40 overs matches have always been fairly dire as far as I'm concerned. I'm also assuming that the innings would continue after the split; I certainly hope you're not talking about two totally separate innings where the openers go back out.

There are certainly some advantages. it'd nullify the effect of a toss and potentially keep games "live" for a bit longer as well as ending complete blowouts a little quicker.

The main issue I have with it is the disadvantage the batsmen not out "across innings" would face. I suppose we see the same thing across session breaks in Tests though, and it's just viewed as part of the game, so I'm not sure.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I actually don't think this idea is horrible. You'd have to split it into two innings of 25 - not 20 - for it to be of any real use though as 40 overs matches have always been fairly dire as far as I'm concerned. I'm also assuming that the innings would continue after the split; I certainly hope you're not talking about two totally separate innings where the openers go back out.

Nah, think the idea is you've 20 wickets accross 50 overs. Shocking idea.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I actually don't think this idea is horrible. You'd have to split it into two innings of 25 - not 20 - for it to be of any real use though as 40 overs matches have always been fairly dire as far as I'm concerned. I'm also assuming that the innings would continue after the split; I certainly hope you're not talking about two totally separate innings where the openers go back out.

There are certainly some advantages. it'd nullify the effect of a toss and potentially keep games "live" for a bit longer as well as ending complete blowouts a little quicker.

The main issue I have with it is the disadvantage the batsmen not out "across innings" would face. I suppose we see the same thing across session breaks in Tests though, and it's just viewed as part of the game, so I'm not sure.

Yeah i wouldn't want it to be 40 overs, and I'm pretty sure it's not 2 separate innings then it would just be a 20/20 double header.

I don't see that as a disadvantage because it already happens when a teams bowled out early then the 2nd innings is started and then broken up while they go to lunch and then they resume again.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Richard

Nah, think the idea is you've 20 wickets accross 50 overs. Shocking idea.

If that's the case then I'm strongly against it. It'd basically be one rather drawn out Twenty20 game. It'd honestly rather watch a Twenty20 double header with my time than a game like that.

I think an innings resumption system has merit, but I'd still rather even it wasn't implemented.